It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Obama skips out on tab, leaves city with the bill

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 12:37 PM
reply to post by DaTroof

So let me follow your "logic" After the secret service said they would not reimburse and the city was to check with either the DNC or the prez's campaign, the city still dropped the ball? Who is spinning now? Re-read the quote! If anyone should pay it should be Obama's campaign if that is how the events really unfolded.
edit on 4-8-2012 by hangedman13 because: An add in

posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 12:43 PM

Originally posted by g146541
reply to post by liquiddrewl

I heard about this, I say next time bring your own security and don't call us at all, even for backup.
Hope other cities see this and plan accordingly, especially with the explosion of municipality bankruptcy going around.

As far as security goes the President will have 2 fleets of 4 each Sikorsky built helicopters, one fleet being a decoy.
There will be a ton of secret service agents well armed including snipers. Plus local police and Connecticut State Troopers. In addition they will require 2 heavy duty rescue fire apparatus , plus 4 well equipped fire engines with foam capabilities. Plus a all times he is here from a distance of about 10 miles the area will be circled by a minimum of two Attack aircraft.
I know this to be true as I was a Firefighter on one of the heavy duty rescue trucks when President Ronald Regan came to Fairfield Connecticut. On Oct. 26 1984

posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 12:44 PM
I know there are clear lines on who has financial liability for what aspects of a Presidential visit. I was in the military for 24 years and all money matters within the government are very well spelled out.

I think that in this case there should be some definitive separation between trips that are clearly campaign related as was probably the case here and those that are combined and those that are not.

The problem often arises when a POTUS combines his campaign events with his official duties. Say when he comes to the city in the morning to make an official POTUS speech then in the evening attends some 35k a plate diner in the same area.

As the one poster said often when people travel for a living on their company’s dime there are clear rules to prevent the abuse of such combinations of "official travel" with coincidentally convenient for the traveler events.

For instance in the military one cannot take leave in conjunction with official travel without a normal duty day between to prevent the "appearance" of impropriety. Say you are sent TDY to Hawaii using government funds for airfare and while you are there (since the tickets were free in effect) you need some leave so you stay 5 extra days and fly out your wife at your own expense. This is not technically any more cost to the government I mean you still have to travel there are back to the round trip ticket is paid for and you don't get per diem while on leave so whats the problem? The problem is that it "appears" to the public that the military is paying for you to take vacation.

This is in effect what the POTUS is doing - he flies in for an official event (legitimate taxpayer expense) then stays for his convenience (a campaign expense) to raise money in the area. It just looks shady and the office of the POTUS should be above such petty appearances. The line should be more clear as to what portions of the travel are "offical" and what parts are "political".

# lay out the funds from your war chest of almost a billion dollars and pay the bill. I know integrity is not one of Barry’s strong suits so I doubt it happens but for me it would go long way to making him seem less like a self aggrandizing ass than usual.

edit on 4/8/2012 by Golf66 because: concoction - conjunction what's your function.... LOL

posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 07:27 PM

But a Secret Service official said Newport Beach city administrators are asking the wrong people to pay for police protection at presidential campaign events. It's the Secret Service that is responsible for the candidates' security, not the campaigns, spokesman Max Milien said, and any cost concerns should have been directed its way. "We cannot reimburse any agencies," he told the Daily Pilot. "We make that clear from day one."
reply to post by liquiddrewl

From your link

posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 08:36 PM
Bottom line is with governments all over the nation big and small have less and less funds it seems a little sketchy for the POTUS to fly in for a political event then claim the small municipality is on the hook for all the overtime and special requirements he requires.

The political campaign should be responsible for all expenses related to his, well…campaigning. Clearly this was a campaign event and all expenses related to him keeping his job rather than actually performing his job should be paid from those funds. I am quite certain that especially in the last year or so he has spent more time on the former than the latter.

Likewise, when he travels to a small municipality for even an official event I have to say if I were the Mayor or City Manager I’d tell the Secret Service unless they pony up the funds they are on their own for protection. The local law enforcement is under no obligation to take orders from the secret service. If it’s their mission and responsibility then leave them to it.

The secret service is no different from any other federal agency - if they require a service they must contract and pay for it. Local LEO's can surely cooperate, and assist from 9-5 and within thier budget for man hours then tell them to piss off. Mayors and even States in the US are not subordinate elements to the federal government to be ordered about to the point if bankruptcy so the POTUS can show up and shake hands. They are responsible to their constituents to spend their money wisely and efficiently. 35,000 dollars is what the Secret Service pays for hookers and hotel rooms in … well wherever that was but it’s a back breaker to a small city. The federal government cannot order a Mayor to spend funds. They want local police assitance then they contract and pay for it.

Trying to weasel 35,000 worth of free services from a small town when you are bragging about having 1 billion dollars to run a campaign should tell you just what kind of guy he really is. Someone who wants to spend his money the way he wants and to tell others that he is entitled to tell them how to spend theirs as well.

Typical liberal – swoop in make demands, steal the show, talk yourself up, be a diva then when the bills come claim that the local taxpayers are responsible for the inconvenience you caused. I am certain the city reaped very little reward from his gracing them with his royal presence. However, I am sure he got a pay off in donations and voter influence. You want the reward pay up.

posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 04:31 PM
reply to post by Rubicant13

Obama's Westport visit cost town $15K in cop/fire OT
Well Obama has done it again this time it effects my town!

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in